Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Part of a series on
Jehovah's Witnesses
About Jehovah's Witnesses
Demographics
History
Organizational Structure
Governing Body
Faithful and Discreet Slave
Legal Instruments
Government Interactions
Beliefs
Doctrines · Practices
Eschatology
Blood · Disfellowshipping
Persecution
Controversy
Related People
Formative Influences
William Miller · N.H. Barbour
Jonas Wendell
Presidents & Members
List of Jehovah's Witnesses
C.T. Russell · M.G. Henschel
J.F. Rutherford · F.W. Franz
D.A. Adams · N.H. Knorr
Ex-Members & Critics
R. Franz · E.C. Gruss
This box: view • talk • edit


Jehovah's Witnesses have beliefs and practices that are commonly regarded as controversial; by governments for the Witnesses' complete refusal to participate in patriotic activities, by some scientists for their belief in creation and by members of Christendom for their doctrines that differ from mainstream Christianity, and by the Christian countercult movement.

Specific areas that form major points of contention include their translation and interpretation of the Bible; their policies on blood transfusions; their attitude towards members of other religions and the treatment of members who dissociate.

Contents

[edit] Doctrinal differences

Jehovah's Witnesses have a number of doctrines that differ from those of traditional Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism). Some of these doctrines differ on points which are considered to be of central importance; others are relatively more minor. The table below shows a comparison of a number of doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses vis-à-vis those of traditional Christianity which are considered to be controversial, and of major importance.

Traditional Christian teaching[1] Corresponding Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching
Nature of God
God has revealed himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are one God. (see Trinitarianism) Only the Father (Jehovah) is God.[2] (see Unitarianism)
Jesus (the Son) is God in the flesh. During his life on earth he was both fully God and fully human. He is eternal and equal in power to God. Jesus is God's Son, but not God.[3]
The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is eternal and equal in power to God. The holy spirit[4] is God’s impersonal, "active force". [5]
Jesus
Jesus is God's Son. He is God in the flesh. Jesus is God's Son, and is a god, but not God Himself. Jesus is also the archangel Michael in his prehuman existence,[6] as well as Apollyon/Abaddon, mentioned in Revelation 9:11.[7]
Jesus was crucified on a cross. Jesus was nailed to a torture stake.[8]
Jesus’ body was resurrected. Jesus’ body was not resurrected; he was resurrected as a spirit. [9]
The return of Christ to the earth will be physical, and has not yet occurred. The return of Christ occurred invisibly in 1914.[10]
Death/Afterlife
The human soul is eternal and does not cease to exist at any time. The soul ceases to exist when a person dies, requiring a resurrection to live again. [11]
Immediately following death, there is afterlife for all mankind in heaven, hell or (for Roman Catholics) purgatory. There is no spiritual afterlife immediately following death, [12] except for the 144,000 are immediately taken to heaven. There is no hell or purgatory.[13]
The unrighteous will be tormented in hell for eternity. There is no eternal torment. Those who have committed an unforgivable sin (such as Judas) experience 'Gehenna' (eternal destruction or extinction) at death.[14]
Judgement and Salvation
At the resurrection, people will be judged by what they did during their lives on earth. Those who are resurrected to life on earth will be judged by future deeds which they will perform during the millennial reign. [15]
All who are saved (born again) will spend eternity in heaven with God. Only 144,000 are born again and will spend eternity in heaven ruling over the Earth with Jesus Christ.[16] With the exception of those who have experienced Gehenna, all who have died (both righteous and unrighteous) will be resurrected to live forever on a paradise earth. [17]
To be saved, a person must believe in Jesus Christ. Many Christian denominations also believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Many Christians (particularly Roman Catholics) also believe that good works are important. To be considered righteous, a person must believe in Jesus Christ,[18] dedicate himself to Jehovah,[19] and conduct his life in accordance with the teachings of the Bible as interpreted by Jehovah's Witnesses[20]

These Witness beliefs are considered by most Christians to be blasphemous or heretical in nature. For this reason, many Christian denominations consider these beliefs to place Jehovah's Witnesses outside the category of Christian, often labelling them as a cult or as a non-Christian religion.

See also: Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit] Bible translation

Jehovah's Witnesses have been criticized over their translation of the Bible, The New World Translation (NWT), by orthodox Christians and Greek and Hebrew grammarians. Critics have stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed the Bible to suit their doctrine, and that the translation itself contains a number of inaccuracies or biases.[21]

[edit] Translation committee

The members of the committee that translated the New World Translation wished to remain anonymous, with the stated goal of ensuring that the glory goes to God and not to man.[22] This move has been criticized, as it is meant that the credentials of the translators could not be checked.

[edit] Theological bias

The New World Translation has been criticized as either adding or selectively translating certain portions of the Bible so as to conform to Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. The criticism of "theological bias" concerns mostly matters of the divinity of Christ (i.e., that Jesus was God), but also concerns other matters such as the eternity of the soul or the return of Jesus to the earth.[23]

The most frequently criticized rendering is that of the first verse of the Gospel of John:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Most English translations - e.g., KJV, NIV, NASB)

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT, emphasis added)

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society states that the latter rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus ("the Word") is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine".[24][25] Some scholars state that "a god" is a possible literal translation of the passage,[26] though not the one they would prefer to see.[27] Some scholars also state that a literal translation does not to equate persons, but assigns a quality (godlike nature or essence) to Jesus.[28]

A large number of scholars, however, have disagreed with the Witnesses' translation of this passage,[29] describing the latter rendering as "a frightful mistranslation", "monstrous", "intellectually dishonest", "totally indefensible", and "evidence [of] an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar".[30]

Other New World Translation renderings that form major points of contention include Luke 23:43, John 8:58, Acts 20:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8 and Revelation 3:14.

The New World Translation rendering of the Greek word proskuneo has also been a source of criticism. The word is rendered "worship" in almost all occurrences in the New World Translation. However, when the word is used in reference to Jesus, it is consistently translated "do obeisance".[31] The Watchtower Society has explained its renderings in the publication Insight on the Scriptures.[32]

[edit] Use of the name "Jehovah"

Main article: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Jehovah in the New Testament

The New World Translation contains the name "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament. The Greek manuscripts from which the New Testament is translated do not contain the name "Jehovah". (The NWT of the Old Testament also contains the name "Jehovah" 145 instances more than it is contained in the extant Hebrew manuscripts from which the Old Testament is translated.)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the justification for using the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament is that it existed in the original New Testament writings, but was subsequently replaced by the Greek words for "God" and "Lord" some time around or before the fourth century. The evidence for this is the subject of debate (see Tetragrammaton in the New Testament).

[edit] Blood

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject transfusions of whole blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma). This is due to the belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God’s eyes. Jehovah’s Witnesses understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10-14 (which speaks of not partaking in any blood) to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion.[33] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood.

[edit] Fractions and components

In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable.[34][35] This is because it is difficult to define at what point blood is no longer blood. As a substance is broken down into smaller and smaller parts it may or may not be considered the original substance. Therefore some Jehovah's Witnesses personally choose to accept the use of blood fractions and some do not.

Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood.[36]

According to author Kerry Louderback-Wood, the Watchtower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".[37] An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.[38] When considering such an analogy it is important to keep in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the whole blood or any of its major components. And if a fraction, “makes up a significant portion of that component” or "carries out the key function of a primary component" it may be objectionable to them.[39]

The human body contains between 2-3kg of leukocytes (white blood cells), but only about 3% of these are in the blood. White blood cells are considered a major component of blood and therefore forbidden. Human breast milk contains about ½-5 million white blood cells per millilitre,[40] however this is not forbidden.

[edit] Storing and donation

Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly reject the storage of blood as being against the direction from the Bible to pour blood out onto the ground. It is due to this understanding that the use of autologous blood is prohibited – that is the storage of one’s own blood before surgery in the case of an emergency. They do on the other hand accept blood components from blood that has been donated and stored by blood clinics. Factor VIII is a clotting factor used in haemophiliac preparations that is acceptable under the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's guidelines. Critics say that over a lifetime an average haemophiliac would require extractions from over 100,000 litres of stored blood.

In a similar fashion Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood fractions from donated blood but view the donation of blood to be unbiblical. This has led to criticism of perceived contradictory and inconsistent policies.[41]

[edit] Legal considerations

Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what treatments they accept or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood transfusion).[42] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests.[43] However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions (for one example, see France).

The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of minor children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. However, some state laws require physicians to administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe permanent damage.

An essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," found in the Autumn issue of Baylor University’s Journal of Church and State, published December 13, 2005, discusses the potential vulnerability of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ legal corporations to significant claims for compensation because of the religion’s possible misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions. According to the essay, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.

[edit] Animal blood

The Watchtower has stated that “Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human ... Such commercialization of ... blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God's perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life ... blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of.”[44] Despite this stance, the use of Hemopure, which is a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine haemoglobin, may be acceptable by some Witnesses.

[edit] Attitude towards other religions

It has been suggested that “one of the more common criticisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years has dealt with their outspoken denunciations of other faiths, religious leaders and clergymen.”[45] In the 1930s and 1940s, the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were described as “notoriously anti-Catholic”,[46] including such images as a semiclad harlot (the Roman Catholic Church) reeling drunkenly into fire and brimstone. Witnesses during the time were openly critical of churches and clergy who they deemed were coconspirators in the war effort. Many highly critical pamphlets were written at the time.

The book entitled Enemies, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1938, included some of the more direct denunciations of primarily the Catholic Church but also the Protestants and the Jews. It includes references to the Catholic Church as "the old harlot" who has a "bloody record… many crimes… a filthy record". The same book is quoted as saying, "Today the so-called 'Protestants' and the Yiddish clergy openly co-operate with and play into the hands of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy like foolish simpletons and thereby aid the Hierarchy to carry on her commercial, religious traffic and increase her revenue… the hierarchy takes the lead, and the simpletons follow… poor simpletons.”[47]

Since World War II, publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses have not included the same level of attack against the church but do continue to view all religions except Jehovah’s Witnesses as being included in “Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion” and are represented as the harlot riding the wild beast in Revelation 13. Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to denounce other religions and refuse to participate in any interfaith relations. Publications continue to contain elements of what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights consider to be anti-Catholic sentiments. An example cited by the 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism included a publication depicting a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship...”[48]

[edit] Statements of the Watchtower Society

The Watchtower Society has made a number of statements in its publications since its inception that have resulted in criticism, particularly from mainstream Christians and former Jehovah's Witnesses. These critics have highlighted a number of controversial statements, changes of doctrine, and failed predictions made by the Watchtower Society. Lists of controversial statements, such as those found below, are found in a number of books[49] and on numerous websites.[50]

[edit] Unfulfilled predictions

Predictions such as the following have appeared in various Watchtower publications:[51]

  • 1907: Armageddon will culminate in the year 1914.[52]
  • 1917: In 1918, God would destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions.[53]
  • 1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925.[54] In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California, and built a mansion on it. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, who would be resurrected to life in 1925.
  • 1924: As of 1926, there would be no more deaths. Witnesses were encouraged to add a room to their houses, and get an undertaker to decorate it, since undertakers would be out of work. Witnesses could then call Abraham's office in Jerusalem and request that a deceased relative be brought back to life. These would subsequently appear in the new room.[55]
  • 1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[56]
  • 1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[57]
  • 1969: Human existence would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were encouraged not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[58]
  • 1969: Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in 1975.[59]
  • 1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[60]

A number of Christian apologists have argued that in making predictions about the future, the Watchtower Society have acted as a prophet,[61] often citing Watchtower Society publications that use the word "prophet" in referring to the organization.[62][63] The Watchtower Society itself has condemned others for making false predictions about the future, stating that such people were "guilty of false prophesying".[64] The apologists argue, based on Deuteronomy 18:22:

   
“
 When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (ESV)
   
”

that the Watchtower Society does not represent God.

The Watchtower Society has stated as early as 1908, "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises....We do not even [assert] that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them."[65] They have also stated that they do not have the gift of prophecy.[66] More recently they have defended themselves against claims of "false prophesying", by saying that they do not claim to be inspired prophets,[67] and that their predictions have never been made "in the name of Jehovah" but rather are given only as an interpretation of Scripture.[68]

[edit] Changes of doctrine

History of Eschatological Doctrine
Last Days Begin Christ's Return Christ as King Resurrection of Anointed Judgment of Religion Great Tribulation
1879-1920 1799 1874 1878 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920
1920-1925 1925
1925-1927 1914 1878 1878 within generation of 1914
1927-1930 1914
1930-1933 1919
1933-1966 1914
1966-1975 1975?
1975-1995 within generation of 1914
1995-2006 imminent

The Watchtower Society has made a number of changes to its doctrines since its inception (see table, right). The controversy surrounding this issue is that the Watchtower Society has said that:

  • People can only fully and accurately understand the Bible and God's purposes through their association with the religion.[69]
  • Witnesses are encouraged to attain to “oneness”[70] and thus not to “harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding,”[71] or be suspicious of their teachings, but rather to have confidence in what they print.[72]

A number of changes in chronology have occurred, particularly in regards to dates for important events such as Armaggedon, the end of human existence on the earth, and the return of Jesus to the Earth. For example, prior to 1914, it was said that Armageddon would end in 1914. In a 1915 edition of the same book, it was said that Armaggedon would end that year. Today, Witnesses are taught to expect Armageddon imminently.

Other changes in interpretation of the Bible have been noted by critics. These have included statements about the Bible itself;[73] identification of persons in the Bible;[74] whether or not people receive a second chance after death;[75] and perhaps most controversially, their standing on blood transfusions.[76] The standing of the Watchtower Society on other matters such as the acceptability of vaccinations[77] or tertiary education[78] has also changed over time.

See also: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit] Statements about itself

Critics of the Watchtower Society (or of Jehovah's Witnesses generally) often cite statements such as those listed above alongside other published statements that the Watchtower Society has made about itself; namely that:

  • The Watchtower Society is the "one and only channel" used by God to continually to dispense truth[79]
  • The Watchtower Society is "directed by Jehovah" and "under the direct supervision of Christ Jesus"[80] and that it "alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or force"[81]

These critics have used such statements to question the credibility of the Watchtower Society.

[edit] Family Integrity & Freedom of Mind

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., Randall Watters, Timothy Campbell, David Grosshoeme, Kaynor Weishaupt, Jan Groenveld, etc.) object to Witness policy and behavior where, in their view, the integrity of family relationships and the capacity of members to exercise freedom of mind is impacted.

Others believe that some members of anti-cult movements have impinged on the religious freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses through coercive deprogramming and discrimination.[82]

[edit] Treatment of members who disassociate

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline

When a member of Jehovah's Witnesses unrepentantly engages in "gross sin", they can be excommunicated, termed disfellowshipping. This involves being shunned by all members of the religion, including any family members that do not live under the same roof. Due to the social nature of the religion, being shunned can isolate a member in a very powerful way and can be devastating if everyone in a member's social circle participates in the shunning.

Prior to 1981, if a member disassociated from the religion but was not disfellowshipped, the practice of shunning was not required and normal contact could be maintained. A policy change in 1981 required that all who were considered to have disassociated by their actions were to be treated in the same way as a member who had been disfellowshipped for gross wrongdoing. The new policy meant that congregation members are not informed whether a person was being shunned due to "disfellowshipping" or "disassociation", or on what grounds. Many of these changes were precipitated by events surrounding Raymond Franz, a former governing body member.

Critics state that fear of being shunned and family break-up causes people to stay who might otherwise freely leave the religion, but Jehovah's Witnesses say that disfellowshipping is a scripturally-documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing.

Jehovah's Witnesses have no provision for conscientious objectors who freely leave to have any continued normal associations. The only way to officially leave the religion is to write a letter requesting to be disassociated or to be disfellowshipped, but both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties. Critics contend the judicial process involved, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organizations' own teachings[83] and can be used in an arbitrary and punitive manner if there is consensus among just a few to so use their authority.[84]

[edit] Reporting of sexual abuse

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

Critics have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members. For a report of abuse to be considered "proven" (to the degree that would merit congregational judicial discipline), there needs to be two witnesses or a confession by the accused (only in cases where there is no physical evidence of the abuse).[85][86]

Some victims of sexual abuse also assert that when reporting abuse they have been directed to maintain silence to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.[87][88]

The official policy on child protection for Jehovah’s Witnesses, which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse, states that elders obey all legal requirements for reporting sex offenders, including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law and that they are to discipline pedophiles. It also emphasizes the right of the victim to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.[89] A Religious Tolerance.org website article on the handling of child sexual abuse cases acknowledges this, stating, "[T]he WTS recommends that the victim's parent or guardian — or even the accused person themselves — report the abuse to the police."

[edit] Internet use

The Watchtower Society has instructed Witnesses to be careful in the use of the Internet because of the availability of what Witnesses consider "harmful" information. This can include information that is objectionable on moral grounds such as pornography, but also information considered to be 'apostate'. The word 'apostate' is assigned special meaning by Witnesses, to refer to individuals who leave their religion over doctrinal matters rather than the broader sense of any person who changes religious or political alliance.[90]

A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking."[91] While Witnesses define the existence of "harmful" information, critics define all accurate information valid. What Witnesses consider "apostate propaganda", critics consider merely an alternative viewpoint, which must be considered in order to claim one has a rounded viewpoint. Witnesses teach that Scriptures such as 2 John 8-11 apply to such "apostates" and thus they must, "look out" for themselves and never "receive" such teachings in any form.[92]

Critics have stated that this warning against Internet use is an example of "milieu control"[93] in which the society controls its members by restricting negative information regarding the society.[94] Jehovah's Witnesses respond to such criticism by stating that branch libraries, accessible by thousands of Witnesses and visitors, include books that speak negatively about Jehovah's Witnesses.[95]

[edit] United Nations association

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations
See also: External Links below

On October 8 2001, a newspaper article was published in the British Guardian newspaper questioning the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's registration as an NGO with the United Nations Department of Public Information and accusing the Watchtower Society of hypocrisy.[96] The reason for this criticism is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have long taught that the United Nations is the “image of the wild beast” referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the second fulfillment of the "abominable thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15.[97][98] The doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly expresses the need to be wary of forming voluntary attachments to organizations that have objectives contrary to the Bible.[99]

An official UN/DPI Web page states, “Please note that association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.”[100]

Within days the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society submitted a formal request for disassociation removing all association with the United Nations,[101] and released a letter stating that the reason for becoming associated with the United Nations Department of Information (DPI) was to access library resources, and that they had not been aware of the change in language contained in the criteria for NGO association.[102]

[edit] Payment of sales tax on literature

On 17 January 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling that sales tax must be paid on religious literature. The following month, a letter from the Watchtower Society went out to all congregations stating that there would no longer be a set price for literature but that they would be given to the public on a donation basis. By way of reason the letter stated that "by adopting a method of literature distribution based completely on donation, Jehovah's people are able to greatly simplify our Bible education work and separate ourselves from those who commercialize religion." They also stated in one of their publications that "there are growing pressures against all religious elements" and that their main concern was to move ahead in the worldwide Kingdom preaching work, "without hindrance".[103] The Supreme Court ruling was not mentioned.


[edit] References

  1. ^ See this page for a general overview of the beliefs of various mainstream Christian denominations.
  2. ^ Aid to Bible Understanding, p.894
  3. ^ Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 282-283; Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 919
  4. ^ Jehovah's Witnesses do not capitalize "Holy Spirit".
  5. ^ Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 361; Make Sure of All Things, p. 487
  6. ^ Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 919, 1152
  7. ^ Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand, p.148.
  8. ^ http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_11.htm. See also New World Translation#Rendering of σταυρός (staurós)
  9. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 334
  10. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 95
  11. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 382
  12. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 30; Make Sure of All Things, p. 143
  13. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 103; Make Sure of All Things, p. 231
  14. ^ Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.1 pp. 905-6
  15. ^ Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 982; The Watchtower, 3/1/1987, p. 29
  16. ^ The Watchtower, 2/1/1986, p. 17, ¶ 17
  17. ^ What Does the Bible Really Teach? 2005 Appendix Hades and Sheol
  18. ^ Watchtower 12/1/85, p. 9
  19. ^ The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 182
  20. ^ The Watchtower, 12/1/1985, p. 18
  21. ^ Robert M. Bowman Jr, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 1992); Samuel Hass: "While this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages." (Journal of Biblical Literature, December 1955, p. 283). The most current NWT revision is from 1984.
  22. ^ Proclaimers, p. 608
  23. ^ See Ankerberg, John and John Weldon, 2003, The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, accessible from this site, which quotes a number of scholars regarding theological bias of the New World Translation.
  24. ^ "Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singluar anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a qualilty about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whome he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word" New World Translation w/ References App. 6A, pg. 1579.
  25. ^ "At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: "The Word was a god." In many translations this expression simply reads: "The Word was God" and is used to support the Trinity doctrine. Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation. But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God. Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of "god" long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term "a god" in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as "of divine kind" or "godlike kind." These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God.—John 14:28; 20:17." Watchtower, 1991 March 1 pg. 28.
  26. ^ Murray J. Harris: "from the point of view of grammar alone, [it] could be rendered 'the Word was a god'..." Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus 1992 p.60; C.H. Dodd: "As a word-for-word translation ['the Word was a God'] cannot be faulted..." New Testament Translation Problems II BT 28, 1977, p.101-2; Jason BeDuhn: "A lexical ("interlinear") translation of the controversial clause would read: 'And a god was the Word.' A minimal literal ("formal equivalence") tranlation would rearrange the word order to match proper English exression: "And the Word was a god." The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation" Truth in Translation 2004, p. 132,
  27. ^ C.H. Dodd: "The reason why [the Word was a god] is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No. 1, January 1977; Jason BeDuhn: "The NWT translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translation we are comparing. I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work." ibid, p. 133
  28. ^ "and godlike sort was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, Johannes Schneider.
  29. ^ Examples include Mantey, Julius, Depth Exploration in the New Testament (NY: Vantage Press, 1980): "The apostle John, in the context of the introduction to his Gospel, is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God..."; Metzger, Bruce M., "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April, 1953), p. 75: "As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering [the Word was a god] is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, "…and the Word was God.""; Ankerberg, John & Weldon, John, Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2005); Bruce, F.F. "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." See this page or this page for a more complete listing.
  30. ^ "a frightful mistranslation" - Bruce M. Metzger; "monstrous" - Samuel J. Mikolaski; "intellectually dishonest" - William Barclay; "totally indefensible" - F. F. Bruce; "an abysmal ignorance..." - Paul L. Kaufman. See this page for a more complete listing.
  31. ^ For a comparative table see [1]
  32. ^ "While some translators use the word “worship” in the majority of cases where pro·sky·ne′o describes persons’ actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one’s reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God’s representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as "God’s Son", the foretold "Son of man", the Messiah with divine authority. On many occasions their obeisance expressed a gratitude for divine revelation or evidence of favor like that expressed in earlier times.—Mt 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Lu 24:50-52; Joh 9:35, 38." Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, pg. 524
  33. ^ "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" (1990). Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
  34. ^ "Be guided by the Living God" (Jun. 15, 2004). The Watchtower
  35. ^ "Questions from readers: Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?" (Jun. 15, 2000). The Watchtower
  36. ^ Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood
  37. ^ Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation, Journal of Church and State Vol 47, Autumn 2005 p. 815
  38. ^ Franz, Raymond. "In Search of Christian Freedom" - Chapter Nine. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991. ISBN 0-914675-16-8. p.732.
  39. ^ Awake! August 2006 box on P. 11
  40. ^ Jackson, K. & Nazar, A. "Breastfeeding, the Immune Response and Long-term Health", Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 106(4), 2006. Available online.
  41. ^ Franz, Raymond. "In Search of Christian Freedom" - Chapter Nine. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991. Pbk. ISBN 0-914675-16-8. pp.732.
  42. ^ http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=10342
  43. ^ http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
  44. ^ The Watchtower (Feb. 1, 1997) p30
  45. ^ Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-7973-3
  46. ^ United States Congress (1943). Declaring Certain Papers, Pamphlets, Books, Pictures and Writings Nonmailable. Hearings Before a Subcommittee.
  47. ^ Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-7973-3
  48. ^ http://www.catholicleague.org/1998report/miscellaneous1998.htm
  49. ^ e.g., Watters, Randall (2004) Thus Saith Jehovah's Witnesses, Common Sense Publications; Gruss, Edmond (2001) Jehovah's Witnesses: Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes, and Prophetic Speculation. What Does the Record Show?, Xulon Press; Reed, David A. (1990) Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989, Baker Books
  50. ^ e.g., The Watchtower Information Service; Quotes-Watchtower.co.uk; Reexamine.Quotes. See also [2]
  51. ^ See this page for a more complete listing
  52. ^ Russell, C.T, The Time is At Hand, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., 1907 p. 101
  53. ^ Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3, 1917, p. 485.
  54. ^ Watchtower, May 15, 1922; Sep. 1, 1922; Apr. 1, 1923; Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1925, p. 110
  55. ^ The Way to Paradise, 1924, pp. 228, 229
  56. ^ Face the Facts, 1938, pp. 46-50
  57. ^ Watchtower, Sep. 15, 1941, p. 288
  58. ^ Awake!, May 22, 1969, p. 15
  59. ^ The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years (1969) (Watchtower publication) Available online; see also [3]
  60. ^ Watchtower, Mar 1, 1984, pp. 18-19
  61. ^ Waldeck, Val Jehovah’s Witnesses: What do they believe?. Pilgrim Publications SA. ISBN 1-920092-08-0; Buttrey, John M (2004). Let No One Mislead You. iUniverse. ISBN 0-595-30710-8; see also some of the books referenced at the start of this section, and the end of the article.
  62. ^ "This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women… Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses… Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?" The Watchtower, 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them', Apr. 1, 1972, p.197
  63. ^ "Whom has God actually used as his prophet?... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. ... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths..." The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1959, pp.39-41
  64. ^ From Awake! Magazine: True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them. (Awake!, Oct. 8, 1968, p. 23, emphasis added)
  65. ^ Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence January 1908 "Views From the Watchtower"
  66. ^ The Watchtower Jan. 1883, p. 425
  67. ^ Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p. 297; Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 136
  68. ^ Awake! Mar. 22, 1993, pp. 3-4
  69. ^ Watchtower, Sep. 1, 1954, p. 529; Oct. 1, 1967, p. 587; Dec. 1, 1981, p.27; Feb 15, 1981, p.19
  70. ^ Ephesians 4:13 The Watchtower, Aug 1, 2001 p. 13
  71. ^ Watchtower, Aug. 1, 2001
  72. ^ Qualified, 1955, p. 156
  73. ^ e.g., 1902: The Book of Ruth is not prophetic. (Watchtower Reprints IV, p. 3110, Nov 15, 1902); 1932: The Book of Ruth is prophetic. (Preservation, 1932, pp. 169, 175, 176)
  74. ^ e.g., 1917: Apollyon is Satan (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 7, 1917) 1969: Apollyon is Jesus (Then Is Finished the Mystery of God, p. 232)
  75. ^ See this page
  76. ^ See this page
  77. ^ See this site
  78. ^ See this site
  79. ^ Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1919; also Watchtower, May 15, 1933, pp. 154-155; Jul. 15, 1960, pp. 438-439; Our Kingdom Ministry, Sep. 2002, p. 8
  80. ^ Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1956, p. 666; Watchtower, Jun. 1, 1955, p. 333
  81. ^ Watchtower, Jul. 1, 1973, p. 402
  82. ^ CESNUR
  83. ^ Matthew 18:17, "The local court was situated at the gate of a city. (De 16:18; 21:19; 22:15, 24; 25:7; Ru 4:1) By "gate" is meant the open space inside the city near the gate. . . as most persons would go in and out of the gate during the day. Also, the publicity that would be afforded any trial at the gate would tend to influence the judges toward care and justice in the trial proceedings and in their decisions. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1, p. 518)
  84. ^ In Search Of Christian Freedom by Raymond Franz, 2002, and In Search of Christian Freedom, pp.374–390 'The Misuse of Disfellowshipping', by Raymond Franz
  85. ^ Robinson, B.A (2005). “Jehovah’s Witnesses (WTS) Handling of Child Sexual Abuse Cases”, Religious Tolerance.org Retrieved Mar 3, 2006.
  86. ^ Tubbs, Sharon (Aug. 22, 2002), "Spiritual shunning", St. Petersburg Times.
  87. ^ "Another Church Sex Scandal" (Apr. 29, 2003). CBS News.
  88. ^ Cutrer, Corrie (Mar. 5, 2001). "Witness Leaders Accused of Shielding Molesters", Christianity Today.
  89. ^ “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Protection” (2003). Jehovah’s Witnesses Office of Public Information.
  90. ^ "apostates have stopped feeding at Jehovah’s table"; "To what have the apostates returned? In many cases, they have reentered the darkness of Christendom and its doctrines, such as the belief that all Christians go to heaven. Moreover, most no longer take a firm Scriptural stand regarding blood, neutrality, and the need to witness about God’s Kingdom.", The Watchtower, 1 July 1994, pp.10-12; also Reasoning from the Scriptures, p.36
  91. ^ May 1 2000 Watchtower p.10.
  92. ^ The Watchtower May 1, 2000 p.10 par. 10
  93. ^ http://www.freeminds.org/psych/lifton2.htm David Grossoehme on Lifton
  94. ^ Cameron, Don (2005). Captives of a Concept pg 112-113. ISBN 1-4116-2210-3
  95. ^ Bethel catalogue 2000 Jehovah's Witnesses
  96. ^ Bates, Stephen (Oct. 8, 2001) "Jehovah's Witnesses link to UN queried", The Guardian
  97. ^ "No Calamity Will Befall Us" (Subheading). (Nov. 15, 2001). The Watchtower, p.19
  98. ^ "Let the Reader Use Discernment", (Subheading "A Modern-Day 'Disgusting Thing'"). (May 1, 1999). The Watchtower, p 14
  99. ^ "Benefiting From Your God-given Conscience" (Subheading "Employment Factors to Consider). (Jul. 15, 1982). The Watchtower pg 26
  100. ^ http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/ngo-partnership.html
  101. ^ Bates, Stephen (Oct. 15, 2001) "'Hypocrite' Jehovah's Witnesses abandon secret link with UN", The Guardian
  102. ^ Letter to Editor - The Guardian" (Oct. 22, 2001) Office of Pulic Information
  103. ^ Our Kingdom Ministry May 1990

[edit] External links

[edit] Positive or neutral resources

[edit] Resources Critical

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Controversies_regarding_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_073a.html"
In other languages